October 5, 2011

Okay, these really are idiotic demands... as read (and mocked) by Rush Limbaugh yesterday. But if you follow his link — to an Occupy Wall Street forum page — you'll see that they're the dream product of one person, who signs himself Lloyd J. Hart, and the first comment is negative:

Way too many demands, Lloyd. I'm not the only person saying this. Occupy Wallstreet needs a laser-like focus if you want to get people on your side!

There are 572 comments, and I'm not going to read them all. But does the whole movement have to take responsibility for stuff like...

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Rush says:

Look, we laugh. Let me tell you something, folks: They believe this. Let me tell you something. They are being taught this. There are adult college professors who teach this crap. Now, where do you think these lunkheads get this stuff? They didn't come out of the womb thinking this. I kid you not. They are being taught this in the deep, dark crevices of academe and peer pressure and everything else.

And that's what Rush is teaching in the deep, dark crevices of AM radio.

281 comments:

There are people who want Occupy Wall Street to be the equivalent of the Arab Spring. The thing is, the "Arab Spring" can be reduced to one sentence: Dump the leader. What's the American protesters' slogan? "Dump Wall Street"? (Certainly not "Dump President Obama"!)

That list "may" be from the herbal head of one smelly hippie, but I've been debates over the last couple days with my less-smelly friends over this list and a couple of them championed the very bullet point you selected...forgiveness of all debt. A giant reboot for the planet's credit.

I haven't listened to Rush since Monica, mostly due to schedule conflicts a la Clair McCaskill, but him pointing out that people on the left believe this stuff, whether en masse or individually, isn't entirely off.

And Ann, I recognize you and the majority of professors and teachers are not pushing swill like this. I also had a few professors who were absolutely committed Marxists (including one who had a giant picture of Lenin in his living room), but who tried to be good teachers beyond their politics.

But there are the Ward Churchills and his ilk out there that are doing it.

Yes, these people are naive, ignorant, unrealistic. Marching against greed?!?

But so what? When the powers that be sit down to hammer out reforms, these people will not have a seat at the table. So why does it matter if their plan doesn't make sense?

What matters is that they are right in their core conviction--that the relationship between Washington and Wall Street must change. And if their march keeps this issue on the front burner, forces it up front in the public conversation, then they have done their jobs and we owe them a debt of thanks.

The Tea Party should be more supportive of this group, with whose basic demand the Tea Party agrees--crony capitalism must go.

People have always believed this stuff. People in debt want it to go away. And if it takes marching in the streets, or burning down a government building or oppressing whoever happens to predominate the banking class, it's quite a common belief.

Enforcing a forgiveness of debt has been one of the key motivators to all kinds of historical events. Usually the debtor doesn't want to forgive it, but the debtees have found ways of convincing them.

For a couple hundred years, immigration and pioneering took care of this. People could just go elsewhere, leaving their debt behind. The brilliance of the homestead act was that people who had thrashed lives could get a new beginning somewhere else, no questions asked. The West was won by a whole lot of people with a whole lot of financial and personal pasts they wanted to forget.

Nowadays, one can't get away from debt, there's no more West to escape to, so people who normally could have wandered away from it are more likely to convince themselves of other approaches to being no longer in debt.

I will grant you that I am only seeing a certain, self selected portion of videos from these clowns, but really, they seem not too far off the reservation of this idiot's demands. Essentially, they want something for nothing, and want to be secure that they will receive what they want without any reference to their own contributions. I think it was Iowahawk who noted " You get a worthless college degree, and you're mad at the bank who gave you the loan, rather than the college who gave you the worthless degree?

The times they are a changing', Althouse, and all you other old farts.

Sure, the demands are absurd. The injustice of the financial/mortgage scam, however, is real. In the aftermath of 9/11, when everybody was supposed to be getting all misty eyed and cooperative, our political and financial classes robbed us of everything they could get their hands on.

I don't have a solution. But, Althouse, weren't you just as dumb with all that Dylan crap back when you were a kid?

Yeah, I know... Dylan's really sophisticated, and such.

The kids don't want to be corrupt and beaten down, like us old farts. Can you blame them? You didn't either, back when you were a kid. Can you remember?

I was going to post something about this on FB, but decided against it because it is just the work of one (seriously deluded) person. But, judging from the comments that we're hearing from the protesters and from similar protesters on their side (*cough* Madison, *cough*), and from what I've seen on lefty blogs and lefty classmates, I think that Rush is right that this guy is not that far from what a lot of people believe.

I'd love to see a reporter go out into the protests and try to discuss one or several of these demands with the people there. How many of them would look at them and shake their head at this person's stupidity. If I asked them, in a polite discussion, what they thought the effects would be if we were to enact these, how many would acknowledge, or even consider, that it would be a disaster?

Ritmo, Alpha Lib, R-V, Garage, - Serious question, Do you agree with me that if we were to enact each or a majority of these demands, we would completely lose our standard of living to the point of becoming a near-third-world country? (BTW, I don't think that any of those commenters are on par with the protesters in terms of craziness.)

I wonder how these people would react if they were asked: "Should all debt be forgiven, yes or no?" I would guess that there would be a substantial number of them who would say yes without any consideration of the consequences of such an act.

I didn't pay thousands for an AM radio. I'm not tested on what Rush Limbaugh says. And I'm not forced to regurgitate whatever bullshit Rush Limbaugh spews if I want credits towards a credential that I absolutely have to have to get my foot in the door with future employers. Other than that, he's exactly like the shitty leftist professors (which describes about 60% of my instructors) I had to endure in undergrad.

The tea party began on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade when Rick Santorum asked why those who have disiplined in their financial lives must pay for those who have not. My neighbor overlevered so he could remodel his kitchen or vuy a bass boat. Why is that my problem?

This is the questions the Germans are asking about the Greeks. Why should we, the disciplined, bail out these who were not.

The mob on Wall Street wants no discipline. They want a jubilee. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Professor, you make it seem that Rush was responding to the demand you listed. That is not the case. His response was to the demands in whole. And of course these morons get these ideas from some of their college professors. Are you denying that? Now perhaps you take exception to the "deep , dark crevices" description, but to equate what is being taught in and out of classrooms, to which most have zero access, to Rush's show, when it is available every day, to anyone with a radio, free of charge, is just stupid.

Follow the money. Anyone making money hand over fist from the status quo, like Rush, is not to be trusted when it comes to understanding the way forward! That's what I tell my red-state bretheren AND my pinko friends... as normal, ethical, concerned people and citizens we are on the same side. We have let an entertainment-media-political complex divide us. We have let racial insecurities and grievances divide us. We have let cultural differences divide us. We are letting a tiny elite screw us.

Wonder when we'll collectively figure it out. The way forward is through systemic changes, not the presidential political carnival.

The Tea Party should be more supportive of this group, with whose basic demand the Tea Party agrees--crony capitalism must go.

I disagree. While both agree that crony capitalism is wrong, they disagree on the root cause. The Occupy Wallstreet crowd believes that corporate greed is the fundamental problem. The Tea Party believes that the size of government, and its ability to hand out or withhold favors, is the fundamental problem.

These different views lead to vastly different policy choices. It would do serious harm to the goals of the Tea Party to support to a group calling for greater government regulation of business.

franglo, I largely agree with your 9:30 comment, in that Rush can't be trusted (nor can just about anyone else in the media or commentary world- I'm commenting based on my own experiences and observations).

I'd like to know, do you agree with any of the demands listed by this person? Which ones, if any, do you think would be clear disasters?

Saw a protester sign on CNN.com, "Nazi Bankers". Made me realize I don't koow anything about bankers in Nazi Germany, let alone Nazi Bankers. The protesters do remind me of the Brown Shirts somewhat because the real point is to distract us from Obama, his horrible handling of the economy, killing an American citizen without trial, encroaching on our rights, etc.

On the other hand, don't just forgive ALL debt, but totally redistribute the wealth, including government property and the property of the protesters' parents.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) The Tea Party should be more supportive of this group, with whose basic demand the Tea Party agrees--crony capitalism must go

(Short Answer):Uh No, Tim, this is NOT something the TEA Party should be supportive of….

(Carol Herman Answer):It is true there is NO “TEA Party” so saying what it does or does NOT believe or what it should or should NOT support is a dangerous thing to do, that being said, however….The Occupy Wall Street types are pretty much the EXACT opposite of the TEA Party. Tell me where the TEA Party thinks that Unemployment Benefits ought to be $20/hour or where the MINIMUM Wage ought to be $20/hour? Or show me where the TEA Party believes that the federal Government needs to spend $2 TRILLION MORE DOLLARS (which we don’t have) on “stimulus” or “environmental remediation?” Where has the TEA Party advocated or why would it advocate for refudiation of ALL debt?Sorry Tim, but the Wall Street hippies are pretty much the diametric opposite of the TEA Party, leave us alone and stop spending our money….or rather stop spending our grandchildren’s money. The Wall Street hippies want to spend more of my grandchildren’s money and interfere with my life and theirs, even more…or did you forget the parts about equal rights for gender and sexual orientation-as CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (Affirmative Action today, Affirmative Action FOREVER!)

"And that's what Rush is teaching in the deep, dark crevices of AM radio."

Sure. But listeners are always free switch to another station, or test Limbaugh's statements against other news sources and opinions.

But "in the deep, dark crevices of academe," there's scant opportunity for independent, critical thinking contrary to the postulations of the professor, who holds the power of the grade to conform the class to approved groupthink.

And professors who deny this reality are just as obstinately and self servingly blind as the journalists who deny liberal bias in mainstream media.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Which ones, if any, do you think would be clear disasters

Lyssa, ALL of them would be disasters . I can’t believe anyone but a Stoner Drop-out/Humanities major would ever believe any of them could be good or even neutral in their effect(s). I suspect you know this already, though.

Well, yes, pretty much all of them were pretty clear disasters to me (the one about ballots seemed reasonable, I think, though maybe I misread it), but I'm curious how other people, particularly people who I generally disagree with, look at them. I'm curious to hear how people justify these when actually thinking about them. I really hope that Franglo, Garage, Alpha Lib, Ritmo, Opus, Robert Cook, and any other liberal out there will answer me honestly; if they are willing to discuss honestly, I will respect and be interested in their opinion.

There's something very medieval in the whole farce: The hatred of bankers; the demonization of usury. Thank goodness our bankers are a polyglot sort and not representative of a particular ethnic group.

Wow "Fred4Pres" aka Bubba the LDS sockpuppet with his AM prevarication and mumbling. In a year of nursey studies at...Casa Grande JC, you didn't see any evil marxist professors. No Ward Churchills. More like.....Ms Garcia the phlebotomy teacher, who ended yr hopes for an RN, Bubba.

Excessive debt elimination-- like a retrofit of bankruptcy-- is a reasonable idea. For individuals that should be allowed and the process facilitated. G-man Sachs & other swinebags can afford it

I owe literally millions of dollars to strangers, and even I don't want it forgiven. What do these slackers owe? The reason they want it forgiven is that they wasted the money they borrowed, have no plan to turn it around and really want to get back to smoking that blunt as soon as they grab a bag of Doritos...on credit.

But, you didn't accept that when you were a kid, did you? You refused to accept that the human condition was to be corrupt and self-serving. Right?

Wrong. Raised by a paratrooper who was raised by a paratrooper who went on to have his own paratrooper. While an individual person deserves the benefit of the doubt until they give reason otherwise, you have to have a healthy measure of cynicism when dealing with people in general, especially civilians and especially civilians who have never spent a day in the military.

I do think that the Tea Party and the Wall St. protestors have shared concerns, but I'm absolutely in agreement that the Tea Party shouldn't support this protest for the simple reason that the tea party has the right approach to the issues at hand already. The Wall St. folks need to let go their media fed hate for Tea Party folks and see how the first step to fighting corporate corruption is by kicking out those who allow and encourage it.

The Tea Party rightly focused its ire against establishment Republicans, calling for that party to clean its own house.

Meanwhile, these protestors turn a blind eye to Obama, Frank, Dodd, and so many other Democrat Party leaders who encouraged and enabled corruption for their own gain.

It's a lot like with the environmental movement, when people who say they care act like they care, then I'll believe they want something more than their own piece of the corruption.

Instead of turning attention to the Democratic party they're easily distracted by Kochs, Fox, and other Rethuglican boogeymen. Meanwhile, the corrupt politicians laugh and smile at these oh so handily distracting tools.

Businesses by their very nature are very efficient about pursuing their own cause. It is the corrupt politicians who make corruption a very efficient way of doing business. When the Wall St. protestors stop being distracted and focus in the same way as the Tea Party, then I think there can be real change.

Because at the core there is substantive agreement about the core problems, and that's something Palin pointed out quite well.

garage mahal said...We must rally behind the banks instead of hurting their feelings. Without them we'd have nothing!

10/5/11 9:46 AM

Indeed you are right. Without banks we really do have nothing. Try getting paid in cash and then going to everywhere you owe money to and pay them in cash. The power company, the phone, cable and cell phone companies. Standing in long lines just to pay your bills. No money orders since there would be no banks to issue them or deposit them and whatever left over cash you have where are you going to hide it? Yes indeed if we had it your way we would be merrily back to the third world.

We really do need banks, more than we need most of the federal and state government departments and agencies.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) I owe literally millions of dollars to strangers, and even I don't want it forgiven. What do these slackers owe? The reason they want it forgiven is that they wasted the money they borrowed, have no plan to turn it around and really want to get back to smoking that blunt as soon as they grab a bag of Doritos...on credit

EXACTLY, you owe people MILLIONS, but in turn other folks owe YOU millions, as well…these guyz and galz owe the bank for their Womyn Studies/English/Madonna Studies Degrees, but want to stiff the bank…they are at the bottom of the debt ladder…they owe “A” but “C” doesn’t owe them, so it’s to their advantage to bail on their loans…it comes at little or no direct cost to them…that’s what makes them so pathetic, to most adults, I believe or at least hope.

Ann Althouse wrote:And that's what Rush is teaching in the deep, dark crevices of AM radio.

I take it from your tone that you're insinuating a criticism of Rush's premise.

Rush is in error, slightly. One doesn't need to be indoctrinated by leftist intelligentsia to agree with Demand 11. Rephrase Demand 11 as a survey question and shop it around in any street in any city and I wager the result will be 60% or more will agree. Sad but true, I fear.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) limiting speculation--or eliminating it--now, there's what they should demandI agree all those “speculators” that help meet market demand for oil and wheat, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS…of course we might get a little cold and hungry, but we’ll just take it from the bourgeoisie….

At the core of this protest is against the corruption and scam from the banks right on down the line as Thomas points out, but of course Rush does not want to look there, but rather to some imaginary liberal professor, where who, who cares as long at it is a convenient straw man. Here is a link to a more articulate protester: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/fox-news-occupy-wall-street-video_n_992406.html?ir=New%20York

The guy who's appropriated Voltaire's name and image for his own ends wrote: At the core of this protest is against the corruption and scam from the banks right on down the line as Thomas points out...

The banks aren't failing due to their own corruption, nor did the scams emanate from Wall Street.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) The protesters may be romantic leftists--but they're fighting the power.Ie finance capitalismI propose a little wager…let’s compare how many members of Congress espousing the Occupiers Platform are elected in 20012 and how many TEA Party members are elected and then we can talk about who’s “fight the power”, at least successfully.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) The banks aren't failing due to their own corruption, nor did the scams emanate from Wall StreetWell now, yes and no….sure there were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act, and Dodd and Frank, BUT…Banks and other financial organizations acted as IF, the high returns were the new normal, “The good times are here to stay”, they overlooked the obvious “bubble” in housing, and the credit-rating agencies did a very poor job..so whilst I think the Smelly Hippie are idjits…I don’t think Wall Street are anywhere close to “angels” in all this.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) No. Maybe helping wealthy owners or execs--when they win. Not doing shit for the workersOh I agree ENTIRELY… I mean when the banks arrange loans for capital improvements in a factory or farm, that does NOTHING for the workers…when speculators connect buyers and sellers, that does NOTHING for the workers, I mean after all, why do workers care if the products or services they produce get sold, right? Sure when speculators drive up the price of oil and North Dakota experiences a “boom” in oil production, as a result, what do the workers get?

I mean huzzah for you “J”, you’re not as incoherent as you USUALLY are but you are STILL an economic illiterate.

let’s compare how many members of Congress espousing the Occupiers Platform are elected in 20012 and how many TEA Party members are elected and then we can talk about who’s “fight the power”, at least successfully.

But don't you know? If you're a lefty, results don't matter. You get an A for effort. So long as you wanted it really bad, that's should be good enough. It's the rest of the world's fault that you failed to accomplish your goals.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)But don't you know? If you're a lefty, results don't matter. You get an A for effort. So long as you wanted it really bad, that's should be good enough. It's the rest of the world's fault that you failed to accomplish your goals My bad, I forgot…in fact your failure makes you even more an heroic figure and worthy of emulation….

when speculators connect buyers and sellers, that does NOTHING for the workers, I mean after all, why do workers care if the products or services they produce get sold, right?

speculators aren't doing any sort of work, Joejoto. They're merely investing. Gambling. Now at times they might make a good deal in goldk tc. Who benefits? The owners and execs. A few wealthy oligarchs. Not workers--even say middle class, teachers technicians,etc. The markets are too complex for your little brain, finance-swine.

These demands are all over the place because there is no leadership at the top, no concrete ideas coming from the Democratic leadership. If Obama were a strong President, a thinking person with ideas, maybe these people would be able to say something coherent. But he's not and they have nothing.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)They're merely investing. Gambling. Now at times they might make a good deal in goldk tc. Who benefitsWell certainly NOT the people who mine gold..oh wait…Ok, certainly not the people that refine gold…oh wait…OK, certainly not the people that sell gold..oh wait..gee “J” I guess someone BESIDES the fat cats benefit…..and the traders on the floor of the commodities exchanges…and the programmers of their computers…and the Bloomberg correspondents that make a living writing about commodities or Cramer on “mad money” or the janitors that clean up the factories, refineries, trading floors, or newspaper news rooms or broadcast studios…I mean apart from them almost NO ONE but fat cats benefit….

Surely, the essence of these protests is, “THEY have money and I don’t, and that’s not FAIR!” The rest is just derivative- methods (impractical or otherwise) to somehow fix this cosmic injustice.

Rush Limbaugh: “he's exactly like the shitty leftist professors” Except, he doesn’t have a grade book?

“Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.” A great idea, if you never want to borrow money again. But why stop there? Why not just make it a crime to lend money at interest? Or at least define it as usury and confine its practice to Jews (another group the protesters don’t seem to much care for).

Besides, if the protesters were economically literate they’d understand that the contemporary cure for excessive debt is government-sponsored inflation.

And then there’s the demand for “free” college education. Yet, nothing is truly free of charge- “free” in this context means only that someone other than the student should pay the cost. Yet if college graduates (in the aggregate) earn more than non-graduates then why should they be subsidized by those who are likely to earn less?

“Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign.” If this is such as great idea, why not demand an end to the secret ballot in political elections? (Well, at least unions are getting something for their participation).

There's is a depressing tale, not suitable for a protest slogan. Regulations don't work. They simply create arbitrage opportunities for creative thievery.

What Table and Spitznagel propose as a solution is institutional and distributed: investors should not invest in banks that don't practice proper risk-assessment and rational employee compensation:

Investment managers have a moral and professional responsibility to play their role in bringing some discipline into the banking system. Their first step should be to separate banks according to their compensation criteria.

* * *

I have a slightly positive take on the occupy protestors. They are idiots. I don't want any of their demands to be met. But the banking practices they protest should be protested. Responsible citizens and responsible businesses should not countenance the thievery from customers and the public treasury that investment banks have carried out.

Best case: The protests put real pressure on banks to self correct. If not the banks themselves, the investors in the banks can leverage this pressure to demand responsible banking.

Most likely case: The protestors are so nihilistic, irresponsible, and moronic that they undermine their own cause.

These demands are all over the place because there is no leadership at the top, no concrete ideas coming from the Democratic leadership. If Obama were a strong President, a thinking person with ideas, maybe these people would be able to say something coherent. But he's not and they have nothing.

You have noticed (and neither have the demonstrators) that Obama is also in the pocket of Wall Street? Where do you think he found that $1 billion campaign war chest?

Obama's great political talent is pretending he's a reformer, when he's really more of the same old shit.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)By the terms of the CRA they had little choice, noThey COULD have lobbied to change the CRA, BUT they didn’t because Fannie and Freddie bought up the debt, essentially leaving them free and clear, leaving the US Taxpayer as the guarantor…it was a “moral hazard” if I have used the term correctly..DBQ is probably the one to discuss this…so banks made bad loans but passed them onto the US taxpayer(s), it was a “sweet deal”…I don’t have to feel bad for them…and IF there was a credible alternative to TARP I’d say TARP was very bad policy…as I haven’t heard one yet, all I can say is TARP was bad, but probably better than letting the banks fail….

Frankly I find the OWS crowd to be "products" of a "socialized system." Their demands strike me as some twisted egalitarianism (somewhere along the line, they all must have slept through their government class).

For the life of me, I fail to grasp why very many would eschew the idea that America should cease to be the land of opportunity, when, for the majority of it's history, it has succeeded so well because of that fact.

Robert Johnson said it very well the other day: I’ve tried poor and I’ve tried rich and I like rich better, doesn’t mean I’m a bad guy. … I didn’t go into business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went into business to create jobs, to create opportunity, to create value for myself and my investors.”

and IF there was a credible alternative to TARP I’d say TARP was very bad policy…as I haven’t heard one yet, all I can say is TARP was bad, but probably better than letting the banks fail….

So you're saying that if Bush/Paulson and later Obama/Geithner had let the I-banks fail that no one would have replaced them in a few days? That all their assets would have absolutely no value so investors would not have stepped in and acquired the valuable pieces? That the motivation for profit would have died immediately so no one would have stepped up to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Well, in North Dakota the workers are making more than they ever dreamed of. Whether they work on the oil patch or in McDonalds, they are being paid very wellPlease recalibrate your “sarcasm/irony” meter good sir or madam…..

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)So you're saying that if Bush/Paulson and later Obama/Geithner had let the I-banks fail that no one would have replaced them in a few daysUh the it’s the assets I’m worried about, IF my money (bank asset) disappears there’s NO PIECES TO PICK UP…I couldn’t care less about Lehman’s Office building, but I sure worried about my deposits! FDIC comes from the Depression, which was made worse when banks failed and took their depositor’s assets with them….A TARP that insured the depositors rather than the banks would have been my preference…simply letting the “baks fail” is merely a recipe for a Great Depression q.v. Kredit Anstalt.

The debt forgiveness thing is not an original idea and is in fact found in the Old Testament with regards to the year of jubilee. See Leviticus 25:8-11. If somebody could find a means-tested way of forgiving the debt of the country, don't you think that candidate (from either party) would have a better than average chance of winning? Isn't one of the main problems in our country right now debt?? I don't know if I agree that all the debt needs to be forgiven, but at least an across the board one-time forgiveness on a scale that the banks were bailed out in 2008. So, for all the Christian conservatives out there, the Bible actually provides a solution!Please note that I am a tax-paying, regular bill-paying state employee who actually has supported Governor Walker in his austerity measures, but I see people all around me in pain because of their debt and these problems just won't go away as we continue through the second Great Depression. Stimulus measures don't work, but I think a one-time debt forgiveness would go a long way. And then we could revisit it again 50 years later like in the Bible.

garage mahal said... We must rally behind the banks instead of hurting their feelings. Without them we'd have nothing!

Not all of the banks wanted bailouts. Some banks were forced to accept bailouts. Forced by our govt to take money (and then abide by the govt strings attached to that money...)

Certainly there are criminals in the banking system, but does that mean that we must discriminate against the banking system as a whole? If we followed those rules, GM, then we might as well stick a Gadsden flag in your hands, because you post here.---

Why are the protesters speaking out against all banks as a whole rather than calling for investigations so the guilty individuals may be punished and replaced by ethical bankers? With regards to the banking system and protesters, who is really taking advantage of whom?

Some bankers are corrupt. So we should forgive all debt so the protesters (who freely admit the tens and hundreds of thousands they owe in student loans, mortgages) do not have to take responsibility for the debt they incurred? Who is taking advantage of whom??

The protesters (and those who are pulling the puppet strings) are message testing, just like a PR firm. They are still trying to find the demand/slogan that most resonates with the general public (and they are trying to co-opt the Tea Party to pop that "bubble" of grassroots power).

In the mean time, consider the protesters' actions rather than their words or slogans when deciding what they stand for, what they want, and who they are. Also considering who is choosing to associate with and praise the protesters' efforts -- Michael Moore, Francis Fox Piven, etc.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Hey Cookevs have you ever let your dog/cat onto the bed/couch “just this once?” How’d that work out? We’ll forgive debt, “just this once?” Really and you think that’d be it, no one would ever think, “Gee if they did it once, they’ll do it again?”

Or ask yourself this, IF debts were to be forgiven every 7 years, what were the odds of getting a 7 year loan in Israel? Or just prior to a Jubilee what do you think the odds of getting a loan were in Israel? Now let’s say you really, REALLY needed the money, for a car or a house repair…but it’s Jubilee, think you’d get the money? Notice the Old Testament talks about the Law, but not its effect? I’ll bet that all those Old Testament Prophets weren’t bankers or economists….

Lastly, “debt” is a bank asset. Go ahead cancel the bank’s assets…for that matter you realize that “Accounts Payable” is an asset to a business, but it’s a “debt.” Go ahead cancel all those assets and watch banks and companies go “belly up.” You realize that Municipal Bonds are “debt” right? And that Muni’ may may up a portion of your retirement fund? So when we forgive debt, you just lost a retirement asset…

One point that I sort of agree with Rush about, in an indirect sort of way; the public school system just doesn't reinforce failure.

I was taught that America was the land of opportunity, and that if I worked smart enough and hard enough that I could succeed. I could also fail; but at least I had an opportunity. Failure can be an excellent teacher.

As I witness my kids in todays school system, I notice everyone gets an "award" for something. Ever sit through an elementary school award assembly, my dog even gets an award. Anyhow, it seems to me that many of the younger generation have developed an entitlement persona. If they do A + B + C = they should get X. Failure has somehow been removed as an option.

It's difficult to picture the most listened to radio program of all time, on which all listeners regardless of orientation are invited to call in and participate, as coming from a "deep, dark crevice".

"Obama's great political talent is pretending he's a reformer, when he's really more of the same old shit.

It seem unlikely the protesters will notice this."

While it is true that Obama has his unquestioning followers, on the whole I strongly disagree with your perception that the protestors will not notice this; indeed, a great many people noticed this from the beginning and continue to notice it. But after all, people concerned with the near death-grip corporate power has on the United States government, are only presented with two viable choices each year. With two corporate lackeys vying for office, many of us felt pressed to ask, who is just a little bit less lackified? Sigh.

Recently some version of the following argument has gained considerable steam among political columnists, bloggers, and commenters throughout the political cybersphere:

The relative merits or ridiculousness of any given set of "demands" identified with the Wall Street protestors is of almost no consequence. What does have consequence, is the fact that the protests are increasing public perception that the Wall Street brokers and the people running the multinational corporations have significantly damaged this country, wield incredible power over the government, and are generally indecent human beings.

This, goes the argument with gathers steam daily, is a valuable recognition nin itself--it is, in truth, a start.

Althouse, I know you occasionally need to toss the few remaining leftists here some red meat; but conflating a show on AM radio that people choose to listen to, with the indoctrination that occurs in every university (except maybe Hillsdale College) in this country....that's just goofy.

And if you, a professor in Madison, actually think that this manifesto is just he work of one guy and isn't backed 100% by the hard left, about 10% of this country, then you really need to get out more. Visit Democratic Underground and similar sites once in a while. You'll be amazed just how far left the far left has drifted.

Fen - Don't waster your time, it's not the protesters who refer to themselves as hippies:

It's the right wing that does:

In a much-circulated story, some rich toffs disparagingly referred to the protesters as "hippies" -- and this has become the preferred nomenclature among rightbloggers (not to mention perhaps-fanciful sources at the New York Post).

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Say Love, you using one the free Wi-Fi hotspots at a Starbucks to post from your Occupy Wall Street, “job?” How old are you, BTW? Do you smell, of Patchouli Oil, that is?

you mean like bankruptcy laws ,Joe-pig? What is called "bankruptcy" could be easily retrofitted to eliminate excessivve debt/loans. And what about demands for a living wage, or right to work?Hardly radical. So employment should depend on what corporate execs think?

Like Limbozo, you don't address the demands...you just bark out the carny insults--lunkheads--or guilt by association-- Look Bubba, Michael Moore's out there...It's the Communist Party!

What they need are some...Effigies. Rush for one. Other teabaggers. Ayn Rand. Miss Rand, dahling, like mutilated and up in smoke. A is indubitably A.

Crimes committed by authoritarian interests funded through involuntary exploitation (e.g., taxes) represents the highest form of corruption. The "occupy wall street" movement should have joined the Tea Party in D.C. Any reliable and sustainable correction must start there.

harrogate wrote: What does have consequence, is the fact that the protests are increasing public perception that the Wall Street brokers and the people running the multinational corporations have significantly damaged this country, wield incredible power over the government, and are generally indecent human beings.

Thus you reveal both the silver lining and the vile miasma of the protest.

I do think highlighting unethical brokerage practices and generating outrage at the folly and waste involved is good. That's the silver lining. The broader anti-capitalist agenda, and its bigoted expression in personal terms is the vile miasma of the whole.

Earlier I alluded to the medieval aspect of these protests. European history offers us a well known history of anti-banking and anti-market sentiment directly tied to anti-semitism. All of the stabbed-in-the-back narratives start with the manipulating money lender.

So target bad practices, protesters, and maybe serious people will take notice. Rampage against the society that cossets you (rioting students also has a medieval pedigree) and you only discredit yourselves.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)you mean like bankruptcy laws ,Joe-pig? What is called "bankruptcy" could be easily retrofitted to eliminate excessivve debt/loans. And what about demands for a living wage, or right to work?Hardly radical. So employment should depend on what corporate execs think The Haldol’s kicking in and you are, for you, what passes for sane, again? OK, bankruptcy, comes with an abysmal credit score for about 7 years….and go ahead and mention you took bankruptcy on a credit application…the point being, declaring bankruptcy comes at a cost…the “debt forgiveness” doesn’t and hence the cost, to society-as a group, and you and I-as individuals, will be IMMENSE.

A “living wage”..so $40,000/year is the living wage, now (That’s what $20/hour equates to, roughly, in case you haven’t been employed in your life or failed mathematics)? AND you get 40K per year employed OR unemployed, so to be a janitor you’d have to pay someone $20.01 (assuming no taxes) for it to be economically viable to work as opposed to not working…I mean take you for example, you can make $20/hour sitting in your mom’s basement or you can make $20/hour asking, “Would you like fries with that?” So I’m pretty certain which one you choose..so the only way to actually get you to the job at McDonalds is to offer MORE than $20/hour? How much do you think an oz. of “weed” will cost or Cheeto’s in a world where the drive thru window clerk makes $40,000 per year, “J”? A “right to work” didn’t see that one…I say a “right” to $40,000 to stoners and layabouts whether or NOT they worked I didn’t see a right to a job mentioned…saw healthcare and a college degree, but didn’t see a right to work. You ALREADY have a right to work, “J” it’s just whether you choose to exercise it or not.

Yeah your employment should depend on what corporate exec’s think “J”…you know they’re called MANAGEMENT…they make policy, set the menu, determine things like hours and wages…sorry, if you want to BE “management” start your own company or work very hard and move up in your corporation…Gee I don’t know, “J” being a power lifter and all, tell me do you listen to the trainers? You know the people that have studied the sport and know a little more than you?

I do hope you are a better power lifter than you are an economist…of course considering how bad you are at economics that shouldn’t be that high a bar to get over.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)I also side with those who feel Wall Street and the banks are taking advantage of the average American.

Why do you feel otherwise I don’t side with the Hippies on Wall Street, that’s all…tell me which of the “demands” you think is a good demand and will have benefits for society? Please do tell? Do you think a MINIMUM WAGE of $20 is going to improve the lives of unskilled teens and African-Americans? Explain to me how OWS is BETTER than the Bankers on Wall Street….

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)When the Federal government us screwing me because its the fair thing to do, I just have to suck it up Were you REALLY patriotic, after the Federal scr3wing you’d ask to pay more taxes for the “pleasure.”

coolkevs wrote:The debt forgiveness thing is not an original idea and is in fact found in the Old Testament with regards to the year of jubilee...

If the ancient Levites' ideas about economics were sound then the world would be a very different place. Instead of providing debt relief, the jubilee only made long-term financing impossible.

If somebody could find a means-tested way of forgiving the debt of the country, don't you think that candidate (from either party) would have a better than average chance of winning?

As far as our sovereign debt is concerned debt forgiveness isn't an issue. We can't forgive our own indebtedness. Debt repudiation is what you're toying with, coolkevs. Any candidate who even suggests such a possibility could do instant and profound harm to our economy. Think 10% unemployment is bad? Try 50% or more.

This nation had a similar problem back in the 1790s. Due to our War of Independence the United States owed a huge sovereign debt, mostly to France. Some people argued that since the money was lent by the government of Louis XVI and that regime longer existed, we could avoid repayment. The French republic threatened war, and Alexander Hamilton pointed out that we would ruin our prospects if the US repudiated its war debt. We coughed up the money.

I don't know if I agree that all the debt needs to be forgiven, but at least an across the board one-time forgiveness on a scale that the banks were bailed out in 2008

Who gets his debts erased and who doesn't -- just one of many irreducible conundrums this "debt forgiveness" canard leads to. TARP was a loan. I do not believe TARP was a good policy (I think those "immanent" bank failures should have been handled by the courts) but it was not debt forgiveness.

Joanna - Well, they accepted a massive bailout signed by George W. Bush, and at this point in time are making it almost impossible to get a home loan, are increasing fees on services, are not working in an honest manner with those who would like to save their homes, versus throwing them out and taking the homes back.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)and at this point in time are making it almost impossible to get a home loan, are increasing fees on services, are not working in an honest manner with those who would like to save their homes, versus throwing them out and taking the homes backNew FEDERAL regulations concerning “reserves” restrict lending….fees are increasing because of Dodd-Frank and the “Durbin Fee”…and it’s Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ripping people off via HEMP…Gee Love, looks to me it’s the Federal GOVERNMENT, not so much the banks that are making it hard on the “average American.”

Considering that it's quite the challenge through testing, admissions & money to get in, I'd say, yea, a professor works in a deep dark crevasse compared to a national radio show available daily for free to anybody.

I would bet that many professors would not have the guts to say on air what they often teach in that deep dark crevasse.

Certainly there are criminals in the banking system, but does that mean that we must discriminate against the banking system as a whole?

I think banks are only part of why they are there.

It does seem like a fruitless and impossible task what they are up against. The Tea Party was fueled by billionaires. Protests by commoners don't accomplish much, the media will ignore them, sleeping on sidewalks in itself isn't a victory. "Occupying" to me means the occupiers gained something at the enemy's expense, their stuff is your stuff, or it could mean actually stopping the bad things you don't like from continuing. So far none of that is happening. It's clear the people that work there do not give a fuck. Wall St is sipping champagne laughing at them. Literally.

You evidently are new to the blogging world, or perhaps you just haven't learned good blogging etiquette. Many of us commit typos. Google's blog hosting engine doesn't allow us to edit our comments once they have been published. So we ignore errors of orthography and concentrate on errors of fact or logic. You must refute Hoosier Daddy's premise and not his spelling, else you will be held a buffoon in our estimation.

Love said... Joanna - Well, they accepted a massive bailout signed by George W. Bush, and at this point in time are making it almost impossible to get a home loan, are increasing fees on services, are not working in an honest manner with those who would like to save their homes, versus throwing them out and taking the homes back.

1. Some banks accept bailouts. Some were forced to take bailouts but did not want them. Regardless, the government allowed bailouts to happen, not the banks. Therefore the government is at the source of that, not the banks.

2. The banks were forced to give home loans to people who were unqualified or otherwise too risky, and the country paid the price. Now they are doing the opposite. Which one hurt the country more? Also, who forced the banks to give loans to risky customers? (A: The govt.)

3. Fees are increasing because the government is increasing costly regulations. There is no free lunch. The government, again, is at the source of this problem.

4. "are not working in an honest manner with those who would like to save their homes, versus throwing them out and taking the homes back" Balderdash. The banks would far prefer to have people paying mortgages than not, and they are allowing people to remain in their homes as they fall far behind in their mortgages. Can you imagine an apartment complex allowing someone to live their rent free for a year? No? Are those apartment complexes horrible? Are people protesting them? Furthermore, why should the banks allow people to live in a home that they are not paying for, that was bought with a loan that the government forced the bank to give, that the bank did not think was a smart investment to being with? Why is the bank the source of angst here? Why yell at the middleman when the over-regulating government is at the source?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)For who? I just looked into it as we're outgrowing our current casa. Even with fair to good credit, we still had three different banks offering a pre-approved amount after we filled out their formsLooking for a new “gated community” with a high zombie-proof wall and strong gates to keep the zombies out? One near a stream, to provide power after the EMP attack? That sounds like the typical Tea-bagging Crypto-Fascist Nerd you are…so you and AllenS fell out of perfectly good airplanes for a living? That explains so much….

I guess there's nothing for these "idealists" to protest in Washington, DC. Smell a rat, garage, in that anomaly? Or was that part of the latest directive you received from Soros' Open Society Institute: protest everywhere but DC? That would be right up your misdirection alley, wouldn't it?

the A-hicks who think this is about another TARP really are confused---as are any corporate liberals, like Bubba-love, who think the protesters are asking to govt should give more cash to big banks. G-manSachs should be NOT saved.They should crash and burn along with the rest of the swine. Credit unions---for all (excepting perhaps..ex-finance dreck)

Joe - I understand all of that, and I agree that the new regs are cumbersome to say the least, but there's more to it than that.

I worked with banks for years, and still do marketing work for a few, and when they can only garner about 3-4% on their money, they elect to hold it.

Right now banks have massive sums of money that could be loaned out, not only to home owners, but to businesses as well, and they also have millions of properties that, instead of foreclosing on, could work deals to keep the properties occupied and owned by those who purchased them.

Of course even an idiot like Rush can be right, even by accident, some of the time. They say the enemy of your enemy is your friend but this puts the lie to that. It does not take a "Rush" to understand these people are idiots. Or that they just make a good cause look bad. But the Right should make up its mind...is it Anti-Wall Street, like the Tea Bagger Rhetoric says or is it pro Wall Street like the Republican bills in congress suggest.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)I realize the demands being made are outlandish and not possible, but how are they any more outlandish than many of the demands of the Tea Party?

As an example; Cain, the current poster boy of the Tea Party thinks we can lower taxes to 9% on personal income, corporate income and sales1) Cain is NOT the “TEA Party”….I would agree that Cain’s proposal is badly flawed, but to many TEA Party folks the problem is not a revenue shortfall as it is a NATIONAL SALES TAX, along with the Income Tax…one or the other, but not both.2) And the TEA Party says, “Spend Less” how is that outrageous? Please ‘splain to me how we can tax our way out of the financial situation we are currently in.

Stick tothe tee-shirt sales BubbaLove..The protest is not about getting you more loans ,dimwit. Its about ..dissolving financial predators, even low-level bunko artistes like you. So like you ll have to go back to like busting tires, or something--the CA grape harvest! aye, las pinches uvas.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)But the Right should make up its mind...is it Anti-Wall Street, like the Tea Bagger Rhetoric says or is it pro Wall Street like the Republican bills in congress suggestFalse Dichotomy…I am anti-Wall Street, in so far as it goes in regards to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I oppose Dodd-Franks, in so far as it discriminates against smaller financial institutions. I am “pro-Wall Street” in that I support capitalism and that to function Capitalism, needs a dynamic Capital Market, now does it have to be on “Wall Street” NYC? Does it have to include UBS or Goldman-Sachs….No.

Love said... I realize the demands being made are outlandish and not possible, but how are they any more outlandish than many of the demands of the Tea Party? As an example; Cain, the current poster boy of the Tea Party thinks we can lower taxes to 9% on personal income, corporate income and sales.

Sweetie, the Tea Party is a movement with no leader. Cain is a candidate. Those are two very different things.

The Tea Party, ultimately, is asking that taxes/spending/government (a) do not grow larger than they already are, and/or (b)scale back to a smaller level (under which, btw, the country was previously able to function).

Love makes a pretty good point--the banks are awash in liquidity and the could, in fact, be lending it out--but they are on the supply side not the demand side. Until small business get a handle on the regulatory environment, they wont be taking risks.

Joe - I didn't say Cain "was" the Tea Party. I said he was their current favorite. (Do you disagree?)

As for spending less, sure, that would be great, but you probably already know that the red states (which represent the heartland of the Tea Party) take in much more in federal assistance than they pay out in taxes, so where would you like to start cutting the spending?

Which programs (that would really have a dramatic effect on the deficit) would you cut first?

How about the military? Ever hear anything from the Tea Party about that?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) That's exactly what I want to know about the commenters here.

All of a sudden, Wall Street and the banks are in need of protection from those nasty protestersNo, I’m laughing at all the Smelly Hippie Protesters…Saying “Hitler” is bad is not to say, “Let’s replace him with Stalin.” I don’t have to like UBS or Goldman-Sachs to oppose OWS and their foolish demands…which have NOTHING to do with Wall Street, BTW.

garage mahal said: If you want an answer from protesters you're going to have to ask them. I bank at a credit union.

My turn: Since you quoted my question but did not reply, I'm now interested in your answer. "Certainly there are criminals in the banking system, but does that mean that we must discriminate against the banking system as a whole?"

How about the military? Ever hear anything from the Tea Party about that?

If you haven't, you haven't been listening. And where it's cut, regard what states, doesn't matter. Everyone I know making TP arguments is, first and foremost, for an across the board, every department. The only variance is the percentage. 5 and 10 are bandied about a bit, but note an across the board cut means just that.

J: keep dissing mormons and you wont be issued your special underwear--and what is your beef with wiccans by the way? I still contend you are the love child of carol herman and cederford without their grace and charm--

That's right joe-pig, those nasty hippies arguing for like removing student loan debt, and a right to work, taking on financial tyrants...unprincipled! boorish ,and probably haven't completed one Maddoff 101 course..whereas you have a cert . right...MadoffTech

Love wrote:Anybody here think that's remotely possible, while still having the revenue necessary to have a functional government, military, etc.?

Do you want revenue, or do you want taxation as a means of social control?

Historically reduced rates have often produced increased revenues. A 9% flat tax paid by everyone with an income could yield more revenue than the current tax system which exempts more than 50% of the wage earning persons from paying any federal income tax. Many of the upper tier earners who do pay the tax are able to avoid a considerable proportion of their liability by exploiting exemptions and deductions. GE is a good example. Cain's 9% figure presupposes the end of progressive taxation.

The question is are you willing to pay 9% of your gross income, withheld from your paycheck and nonrefundable, knowing that Bill Gates also pays the same percentage?

And you didn’t answer, are you in favour of “taxing our way out of the hole?” Even though that’s not possible? What other approach is there, besides cutting spending? We’re onto the “tax increases TODAY” for “Spending cuts tomorrow”, which really means spending cuts NEVER, game…CUT SPENDING FIRST…when that closes 90% of the hole, we’ll talk about increasing taxes…

We can reform the Tax Code, if you want, in a revenue neutral or slightly negative way…I’m in favour of closing out deductions, but lowering rates…I’m in favour of a Fair Tax or a Flat income Tax….I’m in Favour of the Negative Income Tax, truth to tell…I’m just not in favour of adding more taxes, or raising taxes, today, knowing that Democrats are NEVER in favour of spending cuts.

Love: doesnt that depend on how the current bureaucracy is funded? reduce their costs by eliminating departments, cutting the military, and other cuts, its entirely possible the federal government could be funded by a nine percent (or someother percent) flat tax--